The New York Times is a WMD
Today's editorial starts off just as it should, pointing out that David Kay's report on Iraq's supposed weapons found nothing worthy of losing a minute's sleep over, much less starting a war over:
The most striking findings in David Kay's interim report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are his revelations about the backward state of Iraq's chemical and nuclear programs. Based on the evidence gathered so far in three months of searching, it seems clear that these programs barely existed and posed no immediate threat to the global community. To the contrary, it looks as if international inspectors succeeded in reducing or eliminating Iraq's arsenals and dedicated production capacity.
It goes on in much the same vein, pointing out details from the findings that refute W's pre-war claims. So does the Times conclude by calling for a full investigation leading to impeachment and turning the whole criminal Bush gang over to the International Criminal Court? Of course not. They suggest going back and looking again, but getting the UN to do it, and pay for it. Why? To preserve Bush's popularity and to keep open the option for the next pre-emptive war:
Before approving that substantial sum, Congress may want to consider bringing back the U.N. inspectors, whose costs would be paid by the international community. The inspectors clearly did an effective job and have an immense store of data and experience. Their findings would look more credible in the eyes of the world. Still, the important thing is to finish this search, no matter who does it. There is always a chance that there really are some unconventional weapons tucked away somewhere. President Bush's job approval ratings, now plummeting in the polls, may depend in part on whether any weapons are ultimately found. More important, the nation needs to know whether its intelligence was way off the mark, making any further attempts at pre-emptive war problematic.
So to the Times, when the president has been shown to be a liar, and that he lied in order to break international law in order to get thousands of people killed, the most important thing to do is to try to cover for him so that he can break the law again.
All together now:
AAAAARRGGH!
Of course, the Times may just be covering for their own. Judith Miller channelled for Ahmed Chalabi for months, repeating lie after unconfirmed lie about supposed stashes of WMD's all over Iraq. And William Safire insisted on repeating the story about hijacker Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague long after the FBI and the Czechs had said that it probably never happened.
No, the course of action now is not still more inspections in order to save Bush's reputation and make another war possible. Here's the course of action that should be followed:
If the cops raid your house based on false evidence, you would expect them to leave immediately as soon as the evidence was shown to be false. They have no right to stick around to see if maybe you'll beat your wife (or if she'll beat you), or if your daughter is downloading copyrighted music. They lied to get in--they should get out now. Even more so if they were private cops who had no jurisdiction over your house or neighborhood to begin with.
Iraq will still have problems, but with the U.S. gone they'll have one less. The same can be said for the U.S.
Today's editorial starts off just as it should, pointing out that David Kay's report on Iraq's supposed weapons found nothing worthy of losing a minute's sleep over, much less starting a war over:
The most striking findings in David Kay's interim report on the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are his revelations about the backward state of Iraq's chemical and nuclear programs. Based on the evidence gathered so far in three months of searching, it seems clear that these programs barely existed and posed no immediate threat to the global community. To the contrary, it looks as if international inspectors succeeded in reducing or eliminating Iraq's arsenals and dedicated production capacity.
It goes on in much the same vein, pointing out details from the findings that refute W's pre-war claims. So does the Times conclude by calling for a full investigation leading to impeachment and turning the whole criminal Bush gang over to the International Criminal Court? Of course not. They suggest going back and looking again, but getting the UN to do it, and pay for it. Why? To preserve Bush's popularity and to keep open the option for the next pre-emptive war:
Before approving that substantial sum, Congress may want to consider bringing back the U.N. inspectors, whose costs would be paid by the international community. The inspectors clearly did an effective job and have an immense store of data and experience. Their findings would look more credible in the eyes of the world. Still, the important thing is to finish this search, no matter who does it. There is always a chance that there really are some unconventional weapons tucked away somewhere. President Bush's job approval ratings, now plummeting in the polls, may depend in part on whether any weapons are ultimately found. More important, the nation needs to know whether its intelligence was way off the mark, making any further attempts at pre-emptive war problematic.
So to the Times, when the president has been shown to be a liar, and that he lied in order to break international law in order to get thousands of people killed, the most important thing to do is to try to cover for him so that he can break the law again.
All together now:
AAAAARRGGH!
Of course, the Times may just be covering for their own. Judith Miller channelled for Ahmed Chalabi for months, repeating lie after unconfirmed lie about supposed stashes of WMD's all over Iraq. And William Safire insisted on repeating the story about hijacker Mohammed Atta meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague long after the FBI and the Czechs had said that it probably never happened.
No, the course of action now is not still more inspections in order to save Bush's reputation and make another war possible. Here's the course of action that should be followed:
- Full withdrawal of all "coalition" forces from Iraq, beginning immediately and finishing by Christmas.
- Immediate investigation of the Bush administration leading to impeachment and criminal charges.
- Cancellation of all contracts with Halliburton, Bechtel and other war profiteers.
- Any further policing or assistance to Iraq to be handled strictly through the UN, with the US providing monetary assistance only.
If the cops raid your house based on false evidence, you would expect them to leave immediately as soon as the evidence was shown to be false. They have no right to stick around to see if maybe you'll beat your wife (or if she'll beat you), or if your daughter is downloading copyrighted music. They lied to get in--they should get out now. Even more so if they were private cops who had no jurisdiction over your house or neighborhood to begin with.
Iraq will still have problems, but with the U.S. gone they'll have one less. The same can be said for the U.S.
<< Home